Securing our natural wealth a policy agenda for sustainable development in india and for its neighboring countries

South Asia Economic and Policy Studies

Debashis Bandyopadhyay

Securing Our
Natural Wealth
A Policy Agenda for Sustainable
Development in India and its
Neighboring Countries


South Asia Economic and Policy Studies
Series editors
Sachin Chaturvedi, RIS for Developing Countries, New Delhi, India
Mustafizur Rahman, Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), Dhaka, Bangladesh
Abid Suleri, Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Islamabad, Pakistan
Saman Kelegama (1959–2017), Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka (IPS),
Colombo, Sri Lanka


The Series aims to address evolving and new challenges and policy actions that
may be needed in the South Asian Region in the 21st century. It ventures niche and
makes critical assessment to evolve a coherent understanding of the nature of
challenges and allow/facilitate dialogue among scholars and policymakers from the
region working with the common purpose of exploring and strengthening new ways
to implement regional cooperation. The series is multidisciplinary in its orientation
and invites contributions from academicians, policy makers, practitioners, consultants working in the broad fields of regional cooperation; trade and investment;
finance; economic growth and development; industry and technology; agriculture;
services; environment, resources and climate change; demography and migration;
disaster management, globalization and institutions among others.

More information about this series at />

Debashis Bandyopadhyay

Securing Our Natural Wealth
A Policy Agenda for Sustainable
Development in India and its Neighboring
Countries

123


Debashis Bandyopadhyay
Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research/CSIR-CGCRI
Kolkata, West Bengal
India

ISSN 2522-5502
ISSN 2522-5510 (electronic)
South Asia Economic and Policy Studies
ISBN 978-981-10-8871-1
ISBN 978-981-10-8872-8 (eBook)
/>Library of Congress Control Number: 2018935872
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
part of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore


To my parents (Mani and Baba)


Foreword

Identifying policy instruments and institutions meant to secure environmental and
natural wealth is both complex and difficult when economic growth is being led by
globalization, liberalization and consumerism. Even when properly identified,
effective implementation is likewise difficult because stakeholders must navigate
conflicts in the overall impact on associated areas; intellectual property rights (IPR);
issues of governance; plant variety protection; farmers’ rights; traditional knowledge and geographical indications; as well as access to genetic resources.
In turn, each issue provides substantially different impacts on both developing
and developed countries, thereby creating additional conflict situations needing to
be studied and resolved if the associated international agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the Convention on Biological
Diversity and other treaties/protocols is to be respected.

The above-referenced issues are especially complex, but extremely important for
a developing country like India and its neighbours, particularly considering that all
have large agricultural sectors, dynamic and modern non-agricultural sectors and an
emphasis on trade. Poverty and food in-security, however, still exist reminding
policy makers that an ‘all-inclusive development’ strategy is not yet complete.
Securing environment and natural resources in such a context is therefore a challenging task for scientists, policy makers and activists.
Nevertheless, brave scientists like Debashis Bandyopadhyay are accepting the
challenge head-on while also looking for opportunities to contribute towards their
resolution. In his book ‘Securing Our Natural Wealth: A Policy Agenda
for Sustainable Development in India and its Neighboring Countries’,
Dr. Bandyopadhyay systematically flags and analyses issues associated with the
emergence of IPR regimes and international conventions like TRIPS and CBD, as
well as their impact on food security and conservation in developing countries. The
most striking and innovative contribution of the author comes from his ability to
contextualize TRIPS and CBD while articulating the developing country’s perspective on food security, plant protection and farmers’ rights, protection of traditional and indigenous knowledge, genetically modified crops and biosafety.

vii


viii

Foreword

In short, the most resounding message proffered by the author is that by taking
advantage of abundant natural resources, biodiversity and improved agricultural
prospect, many economic activities are moving to developing countries. In this
situation, it is all the more important that efforts are taken to secure such comparative advantage for sustaining the pace of growth and development. Debashis
Bandyopadhyay’s technical expertise and his extensive policy research in this area
are both important contributions to existing literature and will ultimately prove
useful for a range of present and future stakeholders interested in sustainable growth

and development.
Bangkok, Thailand

Hiren Sarkar
Former Chief, Development Policy Section
UNESCAP


Preface

The year 2017 marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Rio Summit and birth
of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD is unique in many
aspects. One of its most noteworthy aspects is the interpretation about how we view
natural resources. From the doctrine of ‘mankind’s common heritage’, the
Convention has ensured that they are subjected to sovereign rights of countries that
harbour them. It has also advocated regulating developmental and industrial laws
that are likely to be prejudicial to the environment. The CBD has thus emerged as
an important tool for driving social equity across the world through its inclusive
nature and fair disposition. Needless to say, the Convention has thus been largely
accepted by the developing countries amid a vastly exclusive set-up. It has also
nucleated creation of numerous other protocols on key issues concerning natural
resources such as Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; Nagoya Protocol on Access to
Resources and Benefit Sharing etc.
Two years after the Rio Summit, the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS) was adopted as an annex to the Marrakesh Agreement. It
advocated a rule-based trading system and an intellectual property regime that
would balance the rights and obligations of the member countries. The Agreement
was largely viewed as a handle for the developed countries to harmonize international trade laws.
TRIPS and CBD with their mutually conflicting provisions (in many cases) are
currently shaping the global scenario. The conflicts and debates regarding the

provisions of TRIPS and CBD have arisen from the claims of a strong IPR regime
by the former vis-a-vis the strong conservation claims by the latter. Ironically, what
seems to have been ignored is the underlying synergy between the two in promoting
an equitable world.
Intellectual property rights have long been viewed as an element of the capitalist
world. It is considered as a tool to exert influence over the ‘have-nots’ and to extend
the reach of transnational corporations across the world. Developing countries are
considered to be on the receiving end, often paying royalties for resources that

ix


x

Preface

originate in their own territories. Yet, little effort has been expended to understand
the pivotal role IPR can play in protecting the economic sovereignty of the
developing world—be it through commodity trade or through exploitation of natural resources which most of the developing world is richly endowed with.
The scenario, however, is beginning to change. Since the economic recession of
2008, economic growth and development is shifting southwards with more and
more production and economic activities moving to developing countries. This is
largely because of the advantage from economies of scale and availability of raw
materials. A significant portion of such productive endeavours rely on natural
resources, biodiversity and agriculture. For example, pharmaceutical companies are
increasingly focusing on bioprospecting natural resources, be it in the Amazon
rainforests or in the slopes of the Himalayas. Manufacturing industries are looking
towards nature-derived raw materials, and innovation industries are relying on
traditional knowledge held by indigenous communities. The importance of intellectual property rights in developing countries, especially the ones protecting natural resources, has become imperative in the current context than ever before.
Let us return to the TRIPS and the CBD. While the former advocates balancing

rights and obligations, the latter prohibits any such intervention that is considered
prejudicial to the environment. And TRIPS does provide an option for the developing countries to protect their plant resources through systems aligned to the
specific requirements of the country. We have thus begun to realize and appreciate
the fact that IPR is just not an instrument of expanding capitalist hegemony of the
west, but also an enabling tool for developing countries to build a world based on
sustainability and equity. Thus, while intellectual property protection laws and
policies of various countries are different and evolve at varying paces, the global
governance frameworks should be adequately tweaked so as to accommodate this
changing paradigm of international relationships. This also involves a multitude of
other treaties and conventions regulating plant variety protection, geographical
indications, access and benefit sharing and so on.
Sustainable development is the organizing principle that focuses on meeting
human development goals while conserving natural resources. However, a question
that is commonly asked is that since any value creation out of limited resources
would definitely use up the resource, what exactly should be sustained in sustainable development? Assuming that sustainable development should be looked
into through a wider perspective and that it should also include sustaining the tacit
elements that underlie development (apart from the tangible resources that make up
the world), aspects such as traditional human practices and knowledge, creations of
human mind and the ability of human to manage such resources begin to emerge. It
is through such perspective that intellectual property rights get firmly embedded
into the mandate of sustainable development. Traditional knowledge is perpetual;
agriculture is renewable through human effort. Any policy agenda for sustainable
development should thus invariably focus on conserving traditional knowledge,
indigenous practices, agricultural methods and access to knowledge to all of these.
It is thus fair to argue that ensuring security to our natural wealth through legally
binding frameworks that cover not only tangible natural assets but also intangible


Preface

xi

intellectual assets held by communities, forms the crux of achieving sustainable
development and equity.
In this book, I have tried to provide a glimpse of the above, restricted to a small
region of the world, namely a group of countries bordering the Bay of Bengal in
South Asia. My aim has been not to provide prescriptions or solutions, but to flag
problems and challenges that need to be addressed while working towards
IPR-based sustainable development. The overview of governance frameworks in
the countries and at the international levels gives an indication of the gaps that need
to be bridged and strengths that can be leveraged. The various issues and implications, challenges and opportunities associated with the region unequivocally
reflect that it is a long way to conform the mandate and that a concerted regional
initiative would be much more effective than national efforts in achieving our goal.
A few aspects of the organization of the work might prove useful. Firstly,
throughout this book, there is a preponderance of comparison between developed
and developing countries. This is not with an intention of compartmentalizing the
world into two poles or to draw a positive or negative picture about two categories
of the world economies. This is essentially to highlight the fact that the global
debates and policy challenges relating to IPR are to a large extent about dichotomy,
interpretation and trade-offs on various issues among these two groups of countries.
Secondly, the region being discussed here witnesses an increasing focus on food
security, agricultural production and agro-based livelihood. This is probably why
we have talked more about the plant genetic resources and farmers’ rights and
related aspects compared to other facets of natural resource-based IPR instruments.
And thirdly, this book is more a book in the context of India, or rather on the
enabling role of India in the region. This is reflected in discussion of other countries
being undertaken after a preliminary discussion of the relevant instrument for India.
I am thankful to several individuals, ranging from teachers to friends and colleagues who had given valuable suggestions and insightful comments. Sukanya
Datta, a seasoned writer herself, and Dipankar Basu have prodded me for years to
begin the task of writing a book. Swati Roy Gangopadhyay made a preliminary

review of the concept and provided useful comments. Santanu Sengupta and Suman
Kundu have been instrumental in nucleating the proposal and connecting me with
the publishers. I have greatly benefited from the discussions with and expert advice
from Subhashis Mukhopadhyay, Ashoke Ranjan Thakur and Ajitava Raychaudhuri
for fine-tuning the contents of this book.
The present work matured during a year I spent on deputation from CSIR at the
pristine environs of the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. It is a pleasure for
me to acknowledge the moral support of Indranil Manna and K. Muraleedharan,
Directors of IIT Kanpur and CSIR-CGCRI, respectively. I am particularly grateful
to Hiren Sarkar, former Chief of Development Policy at United Nations Economic
and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific, Bangkok, for agreeing to write an
insightful foreword to this work. I am also particularly thankful to my wife Oishila
for painstakingly going through the manuscript, especially the tables and references,
often with the messy WDI data and flagging places where corrections were needed,
and to my son Aritra for his assistance in finalizing the manuscript. Finally, I am


xii

Preface

grateful to Springer’s Executive Editor Sagarika Ghosh and her colleague Nupoor
Singh for their suggestions and comments and to Springer’s Production Editor
Smilin Prince Nelson and his associate Jayanthi Narayanaswamy for seeing this
work to completion.
Kolkata, India

Debashis Bandyopadhyay

Contents

1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2
South and Southeast Asia: Trade and Cooperation
1.3
Coverage and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4
Defining Natural Wealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5
Facets of Natural Wealth Protection . . . . . . . . . . .
1.6
The Agenda-21 for Sustainable Development . . . .
1.7
Evolving Integrated Solutions and Policies . . . . . .
1.8
New Vistas in South–South Cooperation . . . . . . .
1.9
Structure of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.10 Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
5
6
6

2

Emergence of IPR Regimes and Governance Frameworks . . . .
2.1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2
Evolution of IPR Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1
The Paris Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2
The Berne Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3
Categories of Multilateral Industrial Property
Treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.4
Regional Industrial Property Treaties . . . . . . . . .
2.2.5
World Trade Organization and the TRIPS
Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3
Governance Frameworks for IPR Protection
of Life Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.1
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) . . . .
2.3.3
Cartagena Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3.4
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

7
7
8
8
8

...
...

8
9

...

10

...

10

...
...
...

10
11
12

...

13

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

xiii

xiv

Contents

2.3.5

International Union for Protection
of New Plant Varieties (UPOV) . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.6
Budapest Treaty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.7
Lisbon Agreement for Appellation of Origin
2.4
Major Issues of Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5
Protection vis-a-vis Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6
The Middle Path: Achieving a Balance in Intellectual
Property Protection and Public Access . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3

4

.
.

.
.
.

14
15
16
16
17

......
......
......

18
19
19

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

TRIPS, CBD and Developing Countries: Implications on Food
Security and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2
Agriculture and Food Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3
Biodiversity and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4
Traditional Knowledge, Indigenous Knowledge
and Traditional Cultural Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5
The Enigma of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS . . . . . . . . . .
3.6
Plant Variety Protection and Biodiversity:
Biased Stand of the TRIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7
Options Under the CBD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8
Options Under a Sui generis System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8.1
What Constitutes an Effective Sui generis
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9

Addressing the Concerns of Developing Countries . . . . . .
3.10 UPOV’s Bias Against Developing Countries
and Evolution of Sui generis System at Global Level . . . .
3.11 Addressing Conflict of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.12 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

21
21
22
23

...

...

24
25

...
...
...

25
26
26

...
...

26
27

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

29

29
30
30

..
..

31
31

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

32
33
34
35
35
36
37
38
39

.
.
.
.

The South Asian Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2
Overview of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral
Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) . . . . . . .
4.2.1
Trade Dimension of the BIMSTEC . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2
Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.3
Human Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3
Country Profiles of Selected Countries of South Asia . . . . .
4.3.1
Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2
Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.3
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.4
Myanmar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Contents

4.3.5
Nepal . . . .
4.3.6
Sri Lanka .
4.3.7
Thailand . .
4.4
Why Natural Wealth
is Important? . . . . . .

4.5
Conclusion . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5

6

Plant
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4

xv

...............................
...............................
...............................

40
41
42

Protection in South Asia
...............................
...............................
...............................

Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights . . . . . . .
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Possible Fall Out of Plant Variety Protection . . . .
Privilege for the Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PVP vis-a-vis Patents: What Developing Countries
to Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5
PVP in South Asian Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.1
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.2
Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.3
Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.4
Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.5
Myanmar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.6
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.7
Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

42
43
44

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.
.
.

45
45
46
46

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

47
48
48
50
51
52
54
54
56
57
57

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

59
59
60
60
60

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

61
61
61
64
64
65
65
66
66

.....

67

.
.
.
.

Stand
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous

Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2
Protection of Traditional Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3
Misappropriation of Traditional Knowledge . . . . . . . . .
6.3.1
Examples of Misappropriation of TK in India
6.4
International Instruments for Protecting Traditional
Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5
Protection of TK/IK in South Asian Countries . . . . . . .
6.5.1
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.2
Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.3
Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.4
Myanmar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.5
Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.6
Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.7
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.8
Challenges to TK/IK Protection in South

Asian Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


xvi

Contents

6.6

Traditional Cultural Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.6.1
Protection of TCEs: Initiatives of WIPO . . . .
6.6.2
Using Certification Marks and Labels of
Authenticity to Protect TCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.6.3
Success Story of ‘One Tambon One Product’
Project in Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.7
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

8

.....
.....

68

68

.....

68

.....
.....
.....

69
69
69

....
....
....

71
71
72

....

72

....

72

....
....

73
73

....
....

74
74

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

75
75
77
77
78
78
78
78

....
....
....

79
79
80

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

81
81
82

82

.......

83

Geographical Indications and Appellation of Origin . . . . . . . .
7.1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2
Origins of the Concept of Appellation of Origin . . . . . . .
7.2.1
The Madrid Agreement for Repression of False
or Deceptive Indications of Source of Goods,
1891 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.2
The Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of
Appellations of Origin and their
Registration, 1958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3
The TRIPS and TRIPS Plus Provisions for Geographical
Indications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3.1
Limitations Under TRIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3.2
Alternative Bilateral and Multilateral
GI Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.4
Geographical Indications and Equitable Development . . .
7.5

Protection of Geographical Indications
in South Asian Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5.1
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5.2
Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5.3
Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5.4
Myanmar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5.5
Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5.6
Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5.7
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5.8
Challenges to Protection of Geographical
Indication in South Asian Countries . . . . . . . . .
7.6
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Genetically Modified Crops, Agriculture and Biosafety . . .
8.1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.1
Salient Features of the Protocol . . . . . . . . .
8.3

The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol
on Liability and Redress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.


Contents

xvii

8.4

The Global Concerns on Use of Genetically Modified
Organisms in Food and Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5
GM Crops and Biosafety in South Asian Countries . . .
8.5.1
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5.2

Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5.3
Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5.4
Myanmar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5.5
Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5.6
Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5.7
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.6
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Access
9.1
9.2
9.3

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

to Genetic Resources and Sharing of Benefits . . . . . . .
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Issue of Access and Benefit Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Case of Ayahuasca Patent Revocation: Why Do We
Need a Harmonious ABS Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.4
Evolution of International Protocols for ABS . . . . . . . . .
9.4.1
The Bonn Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.4.2
The Nagoya Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.5
ABS in South Asian Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.5.1

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.5.2
Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.5.3
Bhutan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.5.4
Myanmar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.5.5
Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.5.6
Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.5.7
Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.6
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 Cross
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

84
84
84
86
87
88
88
89
90
91
91

....
....
....

93
93
93

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

94
95
95
96
97
97
99
100
102
102
103
103
105
105

Country Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Economic Profiles of the BIMSTEC Countries . . . . . . . . .
Status of Accession to International Treaties . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of the Natural Wealth Protection Frameworks
at National Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.4.1 Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights . . .
10.4.2 Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge . . . . . . .
10.4.3 Geographical Indications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.4.4 Genetically Modified Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.4.5 Access to Genetic Resource and Sharing
of Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

107
107
107
109

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

110
110
112
113
114

. . . 115


xviii

Contents

10.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
11 IPR and Development in South Asia: Issues and Implications .
11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.2 Imminent Threats to Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.2.1 Patterns of Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.2.2 Depleting Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.2.3 Unsustainable Livelihood Practices . . . . . . . . . .
11.2.4 Loss of Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.2.5 Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11.3 Imperatives of Regional Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.4 Key Issues for IPR-Based Development in South Asia . . .
11.4.1 The Transition from Common Heritage
to Secured Wealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.4.2 Legislation Versus Livelihood . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.4.3 Safeguarding Rights of Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.4.4 Loss of Plant Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.4.5 Achieving a Balance Between Conservation
and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.4.6 Arresting Erosion in Traditional and Community
Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.4.7 The Farm–Forest Nexus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.5 Effects of Harmonization of Intellectual Property Norms
and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.6 Implications of the TRIPS Plus Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.6.1 Examples of the TRIPS Plus and the Doha
Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.6.2 TRIPS Plus in Plant Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.7 Multilateral and Bilateral Access and Benefit-Sharing
Mechanisms: Implications of a Mutually Supportive
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.7.1 The Multilateral System of ABS Under
ITPGRFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.7.2 The Bilateral System of ABS Under CBD
and Nagoya Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.7.3 Challenges for the Mutually Supportive System .
11.7.4 A Middle Path Again Through Regional
Protocols? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.

119
119
119
120
120
120
121
121
121
122

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

122

123
123
125

. . . 125
. . . 126
. . . 127
. . . 128
. . . 128
. . . 129
. . . 130

. . . 131
. . . 131
. . . 132
. . . 132
. . . 132
. . . 133

12 The Road Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
12.2 Trade and Regional Value Chains in the BIMSTEC . . . . . . . . 135


Contents

12.3
12.4
12.5
12.6

12.7
12.8
12.9

Development Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Achieving the Priorities: Activism Versus Rationality . . .
The Importance of Regional Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Centrality of India’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reforms to the TRIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
International Negotiations for TRIPS Reforms . . . . . . . .
Revisiting the ITPGRFA: Challenges of Evolving a
Multilateral Conservation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.9.1 Interdependence of Countries on Crop Varieties
12.9.2 Sustainable Use of PGR Through Conservation
12.9.3 What Is the Advantage of a Multilateral
System? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.9.4 Expanding Scope of the Multilateral System . .
12.9.5 Addressing a Policy Bottleneck: Unauthorized
Access Versus Legitimate Exchange of PGR . .
12.10 Regional Imbalance as a Consequence of National Laws .
12.11 Evolving Regional IPR Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.11.1 Lessons from the MERCOSUR . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.11.2 Lessons from the ASEAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.11.3 Prospects of the BIMSTEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.12 Policy Challenges for Agenda 21 Compliance . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xix

.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

136
137
139

140
140
143

. . . . 144
. . . . 144
. . . . 145
. . . . 146
. . . . 146
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

147
147
148
148
149
149
150
151

Appendix A: Statistical Tables and Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . 153
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177


About the Author

Dr. Debashis Bandyopadhyay is a molecular biologist subspecialized in intellectual property rights and has been working in the domains of S&T management,
technology transfer and S&T dissemination since 2005 with institutions of
Government of India’s Ministry of Science and Technology and Earth Sciences
such as Department of Science and Technology (DST) and Council for Scientific &
Industrial Research (CSIR). Most of his professional assignments are focused on
fine-tuning institutional policies, frameworks and systems to facilitate linking R&D
outcomes in laboratories to a cross section of stakeholders. His research interests
cover sustainable development, public policy and IPR governance with a special
focus on cross-country comparisons of various development policy frameworks,
technology transfer regimes and innovation clusters. He also works on studying the
implications of emerging IPR and technology transfer regimes on the developing
countries from both the positive and negative perspectives.

xxi


Acronyms

ABS
AIA
AO
ARIPO
ASEAN
ASSINSEL
BIMSTEC
CBD
CBM
CBR
CGIAR

CIR
COP
EPC
FAO
FR
FTA
GDP
GEAC
GI
GM
GMO
HDI
IGC
IK
IPR

Access and Benefit Sharing
Advanced Information Agreement
Appellation of Origin
African Industrial Property Organization
Association of Southeast Asian Nations
International Association for Plant Breeders for Protection of Plant
Varieties
Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-sectoral Technical and
Economic Cooperation
Convention on Biological Diversity
Community Biodiversity Management
Community Biodiversity Register
Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research
Community Intellectual Rights

Conference of Parties
European Patent Convention
Food and Agricultural Organization
Farmers’ Rights
Free Trade Agreement
Gross Domestic Product
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee
Geographical Indication
Genetically Modified
Genetically Modified Organism
Human Development Index
Inter-Governmental Committee on Intellectual Property and
Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore
Indigenous Knowledge
Intellectual Property Rights

xxiii


xxiv

ITPGRFA
LDC
LMO
MERCOSUR
MFN
MTA
NAFTA
NBF
NGO

OAPI
OECD
PBR
PBR
PIC
PVP
RVC
SAARC
SAFTA
SAPTA
SAR
TK
TKDL
TKRC
TRIPS
UN
UPOV
WIPO
WTO

Acronyms

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resource for Food and
Agriculture
Least Developed Country
Live Modified Organism
Mercado Comun del Sur
Most Favoured Nation
Material Transfer Agreement
North American Free Trade Association

National Biosafety Fund
Non-Governmental Organization
Organization of African Industrial Property
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
Plant Breeder’s Rights
Public Biodiversity Register
Prior Informed Consent
Plant Variety Protection
Regional Value Chain
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
South Asian Free Trade Association
SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement
South Asian Region
Traditional Knowledge
Traditional Knowledge Digital Library
Traditional Knowledge Resource Classification
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
United Nations
Union Internationale pour la Protection des Obtentions Vegetales
World Intellectual Property Organization
World Trade Organization


Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background
The extensive resource-rich status of the developing countries, particularly with
respect to biodiversity, makes them vulnerable to various forms of exploitation.

This vulnerability and the historical trend of economic and social marginalization
have made conservation one of the principal issues for these countries. Conservation
issues in developing countries comprise not only initiatives for the sustenance of
biodiversity in terms of flora and fauna, but also the protection of indigenous human
communities, their customs, practices, folklore and traditional knowledge along with
the regulation of access to the above resources.
Intellectual property rights (IPR) protection is an effective means of achieving
conservation. Conservation-related IPR issues centres around protection of plant
varieties, protection of life forms, protection of traditional knowledge, protection of
farmers’ rights, regulation of access to biological resources and equitable sharing of
benefits with local communities. Nevertheless, more often than not, IPR regimes continue to remain unequivocally biased towards the interests of the developed countries
and therefore need to be substantially tuned to suit the requirements and aspirations
of the developing economies.
Majority of the countries are signatories and thus members of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) [1]. Regulatory mechanisms under the WTO primarily centres
around Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which happens to be the only most comprehensive framework. However, TRIPS is deficient
in several aspects such as provision for protecting the indigenous or local community knowledge; or equitable sharing of benefits related to biodiversity. Provisions
available under other agreements/protocols aimed towards conservation such as the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Cartagena Protocol and the International Treaty
on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture are also fraught with vagaries
and inconsistencies. The fundamental question thus remains as to how developing
countries could device policies that incorporates conservation, sustainable use and

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018
D. Bandyopadhyay, Securing Our Natural Wealth, South Asia Economic
and Policy Studies, />
1


2

1 Introduction

equitable benefit sharing from natural resources while engaging in trade and economic progress.
As developing countries continue to grapple with poor IPR regimes and governance frameworks, geopolitical obligations from memberships and access to various
trading agreements both regional and beyond emerge as a new challenge. Regional
integration and trade agreements aim to facilitate economic growth through mutual
cooperation by making use of regional resources and demographic advantages. Trade
and development often rely significantly on use of natural resources, indigenous
knowledge and cultural practices. Thus it is imperative that trade agreements take
into consideration the conservation requirements of natural and cultural resources.

1.2 South and Southeast Asia: Trade and Cooperation
Most of the countries of South and Southeast Asia are members of the World Trade
Organization that influence trade, technology transfer and materials transfer including those derived from natural resources. The region is additionally organized under
multiple trade blocks through free trade agreements (FTA). Typically, there are overlaps between such blocks that make a water-tight demarcation of South and Southeast
Asia impossible.
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Bay of Bengal
Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) and
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are major examples. While
SAARC and BIMSTEC mostly encompass South Asia, ASEAN covers south-eastern
countries. Obligations under such agreements need to be appropriately dovetailed
with those of conservation issues of the countries concerned. Moreover, it is essential to address conflicts of compliance and also device an effective hierarchy among
the governance frameworks to determine which provision would supersede others
during such conflicts. Sustainable development priorities of India and its neighbours
are thus increasingly being influenced by the need to address the intertwined issues
of IPR, trade and conservation. This broad ambit covers aspects such as informed
access to biodiversity and equitable sharing of benefits; protection of the rights of
farmers; mechanisms to safeguard traditional and community knowledge; and developing enabling policy frameworks and institutional mechanisms to achieve a coherent
regime incorporating all the above parameters.

1.3 Coverage and Scope
Among the various economic blocs mentioned above, in view of the similarity in
country settings and also renewed political considerations to enhance cooperation,
the BIMSTEC is particularly noteworthy of attention for several reasons [2]. Firstly,
the countries comprising of BIMSTEC are the home to one-fourth of the world


1.3 Coverage and Scope

3

population and witness impressive growth above 6%; however, it contributes only
4% of world GDP (BIMSTEC GDP is roughly USD 3 trillion; against approximately
USD 78 trillion world GDP). Secondly, for all countries in the bloc, agriculture and
natural resources are significant providers of national income thereby making these
sectors important foci for targeting IPR-based conservation. Thirdly, a strong BIMSTEC group, with a coherent and mutually synergistic IPR regime, would provide a
unique advantage to the region not only with respect to economic stability, but also
an effective way of countering the developed country bias in the WTO.
Amidst the aforesaid backdrop, the present work envisages to enumerate the provisions and gaps vis-a-vis challenges and opportunities arising from various international agreements and treaties relating to the relevant intellectual property rights;
and to evaluate the existing provisions and arrangements relating to bioprospecting,
farmers’ rights, plant variety protection, traditional knowledge, indigenous and community practices, etc., in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and
Thailand.

1.4 Defining Natural Wealth
Natural wealth is customarily defined as the sum total of the resources of a country
that is derived from nature either in its endemic form or in such forms that are modified
by human. Thus, while biodiversity and forests comprise of the first component, the
latter comprise of elements such as agriculture, fisheries. In whichever component we
choose to focus, they constitute wealth in so far as their ability to generate economic

returns and prosperity.
In the present discussion of natural wealth, we have adopted a broader view.
We consider apart from the above endemic and man-made components, another
component that includes human tacit knowledge usually derived from nature and
handed down over generations. Such knowledge, so-called the traditional and indigenous knowledge, represents a unique canvas of a country that substantially influence
livelihood. Traditional knowledge comprises of elements such as medicinal use of
plants and natural products; local varieties of seeds and farming practices used in
agriculture; and even traditional cultural expressions such as indigenous community
practices, handicrafts and folklore.

1.5 Facets of Natural Wealth Protection
The extant rule-based approaches to protection and IPR identify some specific
facets around which natural wealth in countries is sought to be protected. There
are overarching treaties and conventions that provide international frameworks
within which countries are obliged to create enabling legislation and policies. The
former includes frameworks like Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) [3],